1. Historical Nomination Processes Constitution does not address the nomination of candidates for President or any other office. George Washington was obvious consensus choice first two terms, so nomination did not become an issue until he decided not to take a third term. Presidential candidates were originally nominated by a Congressional Caucus from 1796-1824. This process was highly criticized for being undemocratic and violation of Separation of Powers.

2. Move to Party Nominating Conventions in 1840’s. –Candidates were initially selected by delegates from each state at a national meeting or convention (Elite Bias) Progressive Movement of early 20 th Century motivated Parties to select national delegates through Primary Elections. –More public influence over process, but party bosses were not tied to Primary outcomes. –This system was highly criticized after 1968 Democratic convention that nominated VP Humphrey who did not win 1 Primary.

3. How We Nominate Candidates Today Both parties made significant changes to their nomination procedures. Large increase in # of Primary Elections. –23 Primaries in 1968, 41 in 2008. Caucus- Similar to primary, but more limited participation and more discussion driven. Closed Primaries – “only party members can vote to choose party’s candidates” Open Primaries – “voter can vote for a party’s candidates regardless of party membership”

4. Inside a Caucus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cnh- 136QqO8&feature=related I-Clicker What do you think, better or worse than what we do in New Mexico ? A)Caucus is more in line with direct democracy and better process than primary. B)Caucus is overrated, not as great as often idealized.

5. Nominating Presidential Candidates Presidential Primaries and Caucuses –The Rush to be First (Front loading); “Super Tuesday” phenomenon (1988 in South). –NM Democrats moved up their Caucus/Primary to increase saliency Fear that long-shot candidates suffer in this system. Do early states like Iowa have too much influence in the process? For example, most contend that Iowa was make or break for Obama in 2008.

6. The Modern Political Campaign The 2004 Presidential Campaigns Cost Nearly 830 Million Dollars- this has been dwarfed by the $ 1 billion plus mark of 2008- candidates together spent about $8 bucks per presidential vote! The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) 1971 –FEC established and limits were placed on contributions- $1,000 originally $2,300 in 2008. –“Matching Funds” Federal subsidies for candidates, but limit on total spending. –Greater disclosure of funds- “Money Primary” –Buckley v. Valeo (1976) – no limit on a candidate’s own campaign spending –Citizens United (2010) extends this notion to companies and interest groups. Leaned on Freedom of speech.

8. Campaign and Election Issues Campaign is much longer in the modern era- most candidates begin campaigning 20 months before general election. The “Invisible Primary” is the campaigning that takes place before any primary or caucus, and is dominated by fund-raising (see slide on increased spending) Incumbency advantage and long tenures in Congress negatively impact elections (see next slide for tenure trends).

11. Do Elections Matter? Your Fiorina textbook argues that the importance of elections is exaggerated. –Due to Partisanship ties and the performance of the incumbent administration, many elections are in the bag before campaigns begin. –Campaigns only critical when the race starts off pretty close to even among candidates (Rare). –Between 1948-2000 campaigns were only decisive in about 6 or so races. This trend is particularly apparent in Congressional races where incumbency advantage is huge (see next slide) One positive trend is that MCs are more responsive to their constituents now than they used to be.

13. Trivialized Elections as a Challenge to Democracy Hudson argues that for elections to be democratic, they must; –Provide opportunity for equal representation of all citizens –Elections must be mechanisms for deliberation about public policy issues –They must control what government does Hudson argues recent elections do not meet these criterion. Could be an essay question.

14. Equal Representation Does the logic that everyone is equal on election day hold? Electoral College and Red/Blue States Campaign fundraising works against equality. –Increased role of soft money and personal wealth –The hidden election of fundraising limited to wealthy. Lack of competitive elections limits real choice for voters (lack of opposition). –“Safe Seats” vs “open seats” Declining role of parties limits average voters connection to elections.

16. Deliberation Media coverage does not provide information that supports deliberation. –Lack of focus on non-Presidential elections –Sound Bite Coverage- In 1968 televisions evening newscasts provided officials an average of 42 seconds to communicate their views. This has shrank to 7.8 seconds in 2000. –Horse Race vs Policy discussions –Hudson argues Presidential elections are mostly entrainment, and as a result do not provide winning candidate any information on how we want to be governed.

17. Lack of Accountability These factors have caused citizens to lose control of the policymaking process (Reliance on Courts) The % of incumbents who win has increased from 87% in the late 1940's to 99% in 2004. The percentage of close races, those decided by less than 10 percentage points, has steadily decreased from 22% in the late 1940's to 7% in 2004. Hudson argues that candidates are not responsive to voters, but to participants of the hidden election of fundraising.

18. Are elections a Challenge to Democracy? Writing Assignment: I would like you to provide one concrete example from the current political world (national or local) for each of the three criterion Hudson uses to support his argument that elections are trivial. Share: Please turn to someone near you and discuss the examples that each of you came up with. Finally, talk through any additional examples you can add to your list.

19. Solutions? Public Financing of Election Campaigns –Capped to prevent excess burden on taxpayers –Free Media Access to Major Candidates? –Requires “Habits of Heart” among elected officials Revitalize Political Parties –Funnel public funding through the parties –Give parties greater role in primaries Deliberative Polls